This morning I was IDing and I found an observation of an opossum with one ID to species. It’s a picture of some device showing a picture of an opossum, with the device framing the picture. Other times I’ve seen pictures of screens, where the pixels of the screen are clearly visible in the picture of the picture (this one wasn’t like that). I agreed with the ID (there’s only one species of opossum in the area) and added a note: “Please post pictures directly, not pictures of screens showing pictures.” A few hours later, someone replied “As long as the date and location are correct, it shouldn’t be an issue”.
What’s iNat’s policy about pictures of pictures? Why do people do this? I checked the observer’s other observations; some are pictures of this device showing a picture, but others are just pictures.
There has been another topic about it before and the reasoning behind the “why” mostly was (and none is my personal opinion, comment or approach):
(1) Taking a picture of the camera screen in the field to tag it with geo data + later forgetting to replace the image
(2) user incapable of transfering images between devices
(3) bad intention/ lazyness/ species farming
I usually comment: “please upload the actuall photo”, because a photo of a photo is not an evidence of presence to me.
A correctly set location is crucial for a photo of a photo being okay with me to go to RG.
Pictures of pictures are not prohibited by iNat. The common approach is to let it skip or check the location or date and mark those as inaccurate to get them out of the way.
That’s what I remember from another discussion a few months back.
It is the identifier’s choice. My choice is - I will not ID a picture of a picture. I leave a polite comment. Mark as Reviewed and Next. iNat guidelines say it is OK, but there are issues around
Is that the observer’s photo (for copyright) ?
Is the date when observed ?
Is the location where observed ?
Is it a random pretty picture scraped from wherever ?
I will not ID a picture of a picture. The picture quality is inadequate for an ID, cannot zoom in for more. And if the observer cannot be bothered to upload their own original picture, and check date and location are correct - it is not on me as an identifier to struggle with it.
If there’s some aspect of this scenario that hasn’t been addressed in those threads, it would be good to specify it here. Otherwise, reading through previous forum discussions on the issue may address any questions.
My interpretation of the comment is that it was approving of the practice in the observation (noting that the image of a cameraback is a placeholder observation to add better pics later as context for IDers) and not pejorative. It’s ok to link to specific iNat content on the forum as positive examples of what users could/should do (though not to call out perceived bad behavior). Perhaps @DianaStuder can clarify?
I posted one observation that was a picture of a picture. In my case the original was taken with a dying bridge camera where I lost the transfer cable and I couldn’t for some reason read the data card directly with a USB card reader. So I was forced to take a photo of a photo with my primary camera (a TG6). I don’t use the bridge camera anymore.
A more common case is that people aren’t aware they can post photos via the web browser, they think iNat is only a mobile app. So they photograph their screen and upload via the app. Or they just want to get a quick ID as they’re processing/tagging their photos.
I’ve also seen cases where observers comment that they didn’t get an IDable photo, but the person standing next to them did, so they got a photo of the other person’s device. As long as it is done with permission, I don’t see any problem with this.
I’ve taken cellphone pics of old print photos of mine, and the occasional back-of-camera shot for location purposes, both for iNat submission. Not a problem and “legal.”
the challenge I have from an identifier’s standpoint is that I don’t know if the observer has permission to use the photo. Secondary to that is accuracy of location, etc. I’ve seen photos of screens, books, pamphlets, etc. Instead of using something like Seek to help ID something seen in a diagram or on a screen, folks end up uploading things to iNat as observations.
I understand the situation of having trouble uploading a photo immediately, or something like that. But as an identifier, I have no way to tell the difference. Bc I get tired of dealing with those observations in the Unknown pile, I honestly just skip them.
You could say the same about almost all legitimate photos on iNat especially if metadata are not available. If someone is clever and wants to post a bogus record or a photo that isn’t theirs, they can probably do so without raising suspicion. I’ve had personal experience outside of iNat of people trying to pass off animal photos that they didn’t take and from locations other than what was claimed. Some of those were very hard to disprove.
One personal experience: I once worked with a photographer to get a photo of a snake into a museum archive to document the species’ presence in a new location. The photographer couldn’t find his original photo but the photo was featured in a book (without the location info) and he still had the copyright. We scanned the book photo and submitted the digital image to the museum. An unusual circumstance I admit but it was a legitimate action.